DAMAGES AWARDED

Grey River Argus, 22 September 1937, Page 2

DAMAGES AWARDED

MOTOR COLLISION CASE. Damages amounting to £B3 Os Id with Court costs and solicitor’s fee were awarded by Mr. Raymond Ferner S.M. in an action brought in the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth yesterday by William Wilson, farmer, of Camerons (Mr. W. D. Taylor), against Robert Ross Munro, salesman of Greymouth, (Mr. J. W. Hannan). The claim arose as the result of damage to a motor-car, the result of a collision with another car, at Gladstone, on December 10, 1936 and negligent and unskilled driving was alleged on the part of defendant. Mr. Taylor said that the accident took place at 5.45 p.m. when plaintiff was travelling from Greymouth on his correct side. As he approached the side-road leading to the mill at Gladstone, he was travelling about 25 miles per hour. Defendant’s car came out of the side-road, and struck the left front wheel of plaintiff’s car. There was a large triangle of gravel in the centre of the road, at the place, and it seemed clear, from the nature of the road, that it was habitual for traffic to “cut the corner”

there. On plaintiff’s left, there was a bank at least six feet aio-h, which effectively masked plaintiff's view. The visibility at the corner was approximately 50 feet. It was allegedthat, in the first place, defendant “cut the corner” badly. He was emerging from a side-road on to the main road, and his duty to take care was considerable. Added to that, defendant had the right-hand rule against him, as plaintiff was approaching from his right. Mr. Taylor submitted that defendant must take the consequences of his actions. William Wilson, in evidence, said that when he saw defendant’s ear, there were only eight or ten vards between them. He took his foot off the accelerator and put it on the brake, but 'he had not time to put pressure on before the collision. Before the impact, he gave his wheel a twist to the rieht, in an effort to avoid the collision.

To Mr. Hannan: It was his habit blow his horn, and slow up a little when approaching the corner. He knew it was an awkward intersection, and it was difficult to see earn coming out of the side-road. At Uv moment of the impact, defendant’s car was about three feet out on to the bitumen. Witness tried to turn to the right, but could not avoid the collision. His eye-sight was fairly good, and he would describe it as average.

To Mr. Taylor: The impact put his brakes and steering gear out of action, and he ffist coasted along to a standstill. When he was tested for his license, he had no difficulty in connection with his eye sight. William Joseph Hughes, motor mechanic, gave details of the damage to Wilson’s car. It was practically a new car, and the brakes and steering were out of action, as a result of the collision. The car had to be stripped down, the body taken off, and rebuilt. William Frederick Harley, who visited the scene of the accident, with olaintiff, said that the visibility at the corner was bad, owing to gorse growing on the top of the bank. A car could not be seen coming out of the side-road until it was practically on to the main road. Tests were made with cars, to prove this point.

To Mr. Hannan: If a man were very quick in the uptake, he might have avoided a collision, by swerving to -the right. Fifty per cent, of drivers might have avoided it. Mr. Hannan said it was admitted by the defence that the onus was on Munro to give way to a car approaching on his right. Defendant was proceeding out of the side-road

down a sharp slope, and was moving slowly in second gear. When he first saw plaintiff’s car, it was 60ft or 70 feet away. Owing to the down slope of the side-road it was not practicable for defendant to back. If he had continued on to the main road, there would have been a more serious collision. He pulled to the right, and got as close to the side as possible. He did all he could to avoid the accident. Had plaintiff been keeping a proper lookout, he could have gone to the right, and avoided the collision. Defendant said that he had 11 or 12 years’ experience as a driver. He gave evidence regarding the accident, on the lines of his counsel’s statement. He maintained that Wilson was doing between 40 and 50 miles per hour. Witness pulled in as far to the bank as he could, and stopped The Magistrate 'adjourned the Court Io inspect the scene of the accident.

On resuming, the Magistrate reviewed the evidence, and held that defendant had been negligent, in that ho did not observe the right-hand rule, and'that he “cut the corner.” There was no contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff.